Do you think that writing everything you know in a Judiciary Mains answer can get you more marks? Actually, it can sometimes do the exact opposite.
In Judiciary Mains, the objective is not to show the examiner how much law you know. The real test is whether you can understand what the question is asking, identify the relevant legal issues, and present the law in a precise, structured and analytical manner.
This is where many students make a common mistake. They see a question from a topic they have studied well and think, “I know this topic, so let me write everything I know about it.” But writing everything you know is not the same as answering the question. An answer can contain a lot of correct law and still lose marks if much of that law is irrelevant to what has actually been asked.
For example, suppose you are asked a five-mark question on the difference between the seat and venue of arbitration. You should first look at the marks allotted to the question and then decide how much information is actually required. For a five-marker, you can explain what the seat of arbitration means, what the venue means, clearly distinguish between the two, support your answer with a relevant judgment, and conclude. You do not need to reproduce the entire Arbitration and Conciliation Act or discuss every principle relating to arbitration simply because you know them. The examiner has asked you to address a specific legal issue, and your answer should remain focused on that issue.
The same approach applies to questions from minor laws as well. Suppose a question from the Partnership Act asks you about what is the conclusive proof of partnership. You may mention the essential ingredients of partnership. The core of the question is about the concept of mutual agency. Therefore, the student’s answer should be about what mutual agency is and why it is considered an essential element of partnership. There is no need to mention every aspect of partnership law, such as registration, dissolution, rights of partners or other concepts that are not relevant to the question.
This is one of the most important things to understand about Judiciary Mains: the examiner is not asking you to reproduce your entire knowledge of a subject. The examiner is asking you to answer the question that has been put before you.
A good answer, therefore, should make it clear that you have understood the question, identified the legal issue, applied the relevant law and presented it appropriately within the marks allotted. Your knowledge is important, but your ability to select and present that knowledge is equally important.
So, before you start writing an answer, take a moment to understand exactly what the question is asking. First of all see the marks allotted to a question and identify the points that need to be focused on. Once you have done that, make your answer around those points.
This is also why answer writing practice is so important for Judiciary Mains. Merely studying provisions and case laws is not enough. You need to learn how to identify the demand of a question, decide what is relevant, determine how much you should write, and use case laws and legal provisions effectively without making the answer unnecessarily lengthy.
At Maansarovar Law Centre, we focus on exactly this aspect of preparation. We don't just tell you what the law is; we guide you on how to analyse a question, how much to write according to the marks, which points to prioritise, how to structure your answer and how to use case law effectively.
We will also provide you with sample answers and topper answer copies so that you can understand how a well-structured answer looks in practice and, more importantly, how a student can score well by writing what is actually required instead of simply writing everything they know.
Because, at the end of the day, knowing everything does not mean you have to write everything.
In Judiciary Mains, the goal is not to show the examiner how much you know. The goal is to show the examiner that you know exactly what the question requires.